Slashdot Mirror
Electric Armor Tested For Light Armored Vehicles
joncrie writes "The Telegraph is reporting that British MoD scientists are now testing a new electric armor to protect light armored vehicles against RPGs.
The new electric armour is made up of a highly-charged capacitor that is connected to two separate metal plates on the tank's exterior. When an RPG warhead fires its jet of molten copper, it penetrates both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate. This makes a connection and thousands of amps of electricity vaporises most of the molten copper. The rest of the copper is dispersed harmlessly against the vehicle's hull. The initial development was mentioned previously."
The heavily armoured divisions of the US and British armies had little to fear of the iraqi armed forces RPGs, the most "devastating" weapon in their limited arsenal.
However once the initial resistance was swiftly dealt with, the all new threat came from roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and mines. This will make some difference, but most terrorists will strike at the troops outside of their vehicles anyway.
That's like arguing against bullet proof vests with the fact that high-velocity weapons penetrate them.
"Alternatively, what if 2-3 shots are fired simultaneously at different locations in an attempt to overload the electrical system?"
Then it takes 9 shots to take out 3 tanks, instead of one per tank. Meanwhile, the tesla-tank can return fire.
Don'tcha think you're trying a bit hard to find the gotcha in it?
"Derp de derp."
Anyway, nobody ever promised this would make tanks absolutely invulnerable to RPGs. If it significantly reduces damage (and casualties) and gives the tank a better chance to return fire, it's a success.
Absolutely, which is why arms races are so fucking *dangerous*. There's still lots of talk about the militarization of space, to use a contemporary example -- the only result this will have is the development of more powerful weapons to launch into orbit. When one nation does something like that, it forces every other nation that doesn't want to be routinely threatened to jump in and start their own space program (or whatever) too. Before you know it we'll have a) satellites b) satellites to blow up other people's satellites c)satellites to blow up the satellites that blow up our satellites d) satellites to blow up the launching pads that send the satellites that blow up our satellites into space e) satellites to blow up enemy cities, so they can't manufacture the equipment to build launch pads to launch satellites that blow up our satellites.
> That's like arguing against bullet proof vests with the fact that high-velocity weapons penetrate them.
No, it's a very legitimate question.
They should be looking at what types of attacks this technology is effective against and which it's not. Then, they should be comparing that with battle experiences to see if the technology is good enough to be deployed as-is, or if it needs more development before it is worth using.
Also, they need to account for the adaptability of the enemy. If the "shields" are destroyed by one shot, would the enemy immediately change ambush tactics to fire an initial hit from one location, with a second shooter positioned to fire a second shot?
"Heh you think Michael did it? Doubtful."
While normal moderation is common, michael is infamous for having carried out a -1 on threads which have simply disagreed with him in the past.
"A.) You should just email him or the staff directly."
Because we all know they take emails seriously. They always do their best to fix the situation, don't they?
"B.) Bitching about it here can only cause other people to bitch, and really the discussion is about the armor. Go through the right channels before making a public stink. This little lesson in life will help you down the road."
Right. I've tried going through the public channels before. Has it helped my situation? Has, you know, VA Software told michael to sharpen up his act or else he'll get canned? No. michael keeps posting drivel.
"Why is one story pissing you off? I mean, yeesh, it's not like you cancel cable because Will and Grace is on. Lighten up, man."
It's not just one story. This is simply the most stellar example of michael's idiotic posting behaviour accumulated over the last few months. Besides, I don't get cable or Will and Grace.
"Why did you even subscribe in the first place?"
I subscribed in order to facilitate my zoo.pl use and to get in earlier on the Linux kernel release announcements.
"It's not like Slashdot was misrepresented to you. It's not like you paid to have access here. It's not like new content was revealed to you as a result of it. Honestly man, calm down."
Do you not understand? I'm not pissed off with Slashdot as a whole. Just michael's stupidity. I'm perfectly within my rights to withdraw some of their cashflow as a consequence. Do you not understand the concept of a boycott?
"I agree with some of the complaints you have about Slashdot, but you threw money at them out of your own stupidity. Retard."
Nice job on the ad hominem.
If an ak47 is breaching your tank armor, you've got bigger problems.
I do security
"Always believe that you'll be fighting against an enemy who will learn and exploit your weaknesses."
Like wheels or tracks?
I doubt that this sort of system will eve be applied to moving parts.
Go for the wheels or tracks, its pretty obvious.
(and surely applies to more than just light vehicles? I mean, how many RPG shots would it take to make an M1 Abrams slough a track and thereby immobilise it?)
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
To make my point another way, what do you think the result will be if a set of these patrol outside every WTO meeting from now on. Anyone who shows up to protest, unless they figure out counter measures, will be practically strapping electrodes to their own genitals and asking to be tortured. Chances are good it will put an end to protests and some of the crap the WTO pulls deserves to be protested. Protesting is one of the things our First Amendment is all about and this could put an end to.
Why do you think this would only be used against an out of control violent protest. Its non lethal, right, no one will get permenently damaged, right? Why not use it on anybody who strays in to the cordon around a WTO meeting, or anyone who lies down in the street in a nonviolent protest. In fact they may well be planning on building a cordon out of these beams which will prevent protesters from getting anywhere near something that deserves to be protested, that is what the name "Active Denial" suggests, they are actively denying you entry to anyplace they don't want you to go, especially to protest.
Its just to clean, tidy and easy so its sure to be abused more than all the messy means for riot control supposedly civilized governments currently use.
@de_machina
If they make the outer armour thick enough to stop small arms fire, then they're adding significant weight to the vehicle. Particularly the HMMWVs and such. If you add 2,000lbs of armour, you're facing other, structural, problems with the vehicles.
:(
If you use 1/4 of your carrying capacity for armour, then that means that your convoys are going need 25% more vehicles.
Which means 25% more targets and (at least) 25% more breakdowns.
Which is exactly what you do not want in the "long-lasting, low-grade, hostile civilian population," scenario you mentioned.
If the system is capable of vaporizing copper, what do you think is going to happen to water?
I see you have never lived in a farming community...
.mil to tell you the actual environmental impact of a miliatary operation? The same military that dropped tons of Agent Orange on Vietnam? The page doesn't even talk about the impact on the people who live in the area, only that the impact upon soldiers firing the things then leaving will be minimal. Duh. Even that report recommends avoiding depleted uranium sites, and chastising villagers for taking "souviners" of fired bullets.
And for that matter, do you trust a
The report says that depleted uranium gives off roughly 40% of the radiation of regular uranium. 40%. That's still pretty damned radioactive for an area you plan on raising kids in.
The ______ Agenda
Here's the rub: getting two shooters positioned is harder than getting one positioned.
It's like bomb detectors, the anti-ballistic missile system, and all other 'armor' systems. You raise the bar. In this case, the enemy can only do half as many attacks against the vehicles if they have a limited weapon supply. What if one of the shooters get hit before they can fire? Ambush failed. It's like RAID-0. One HD fails, data lost. You can place three shooters to help prevent this, but that's taking resources that you'd rather use elsewhere.
I don't read AC A human right
How about militias or partisans? Are they terorists as well? Was the french resistance wearing uniforms when fighting against the germans in ww2?
http://ebgp.net/ccc/
The big problem with that idea is threefold. First, when the breach occurs it's going to require a non-trivial amount of time for the system to begin applying current, heating the pellets, and congealing together.
This leads to our second problem: a frigging bomb just went off next to (or within) the plating. The hull, and pellets contained therein, are no longer on their original plane. The pellets that were in the positions now left empty (the hole), are going to be either vaporized or massively displaced. More specifically, many weapons detonate after penetration. The result being an outward blast that creates a bulge in the hull, and distorts the original shape of the hull into a roughly conical form.
Which leads to the third problem: the metal will need to be in place before it cools and solidifies. In our hypothetical scenario, we have a large gap in the hull, a temporarily displaced sea, and ragged edges of now-melting liquid metal. If the pellets could move into place, melt together, then solidify within a tenth of a second or less, the idea might work. And longer than that, and water pressure will act like a machine gun and a grindstone at the same time, moving with enough force to rip away anything that isn't extremely solid and secure.
Ultimately, while an interesting idea it just won't work. If anything it might well weaken the ship, both on the long term and in case of attack. Sorry.
My other OS is the MCP!